Another registry for Javascript files and another json package description. This is getting ridiculous, you guys (npm, component, bower, volo, ender, jam and now plugins.jquery) should get together and fix this mess.
back
5 comments
Would any of the CommonJS[1] "packages" specs be a good fit for them, or are they all too disparate? Is that even a concern of CommonJS?
It seems like JS could use some sort of working group to address these types of issues, such as PHP with the FIG[2] (Framework Interoperability Group); not sure if CommonJS is it, or could be...
Sometimes it takes a while to herd wild cats.
I hope there will be less arguments of "...but standards are bad..." this time around.
JS community is maturing to the point where they do need to stop reinventing the wheel.
Occasionally there are developers who just love to write more code and churn stuffs out cuz you know.. that's what rockstars do :) (and make a name for themselves).
I whole heartedly agree. Yes, jQuery plugins is trying to be a curated field of "high quality" plugins but at the same time I can only concur with your frustration.
Python -> pip, Ruby -> gem, (more but I'm lazy.) These are good things. They make our lives so much better.
Javascript targets multiple domains, unlike other languages, so I understand the issue about consumer installers that build differently. But at least let's agree on a single json and on a single registry where everyone pulls from the same files so that we don't need to push our packages to 10 different registries and write 10 slightly different json descriptions for them.
Ender relies on the npm registry, it’s just another client.
I like what the Ruby community did with RVM and RBenv. https://gist.github.com/1912050